Subject: Tidying notes on {goi}

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:51:19 EDT

Cowan:
<IIRC when you quantify a variable that has already been bound,it is just a 
normal quantifier, so the second {su'o da} means "one or more of (the 
existing) da", not very useful.But ro da poi .... re da would mean "two of 
those which etc.">

Well, those are remarkably UNnormal quantifiers in logic, but right for that 
part of lojban that has the standard sumti as quantifier-gadri-bridi.i.e., 
quantifier-sumti. The point is also correct.

&:
<I hold that any specific referent can beintroduced into the discourse by 
means of a ko'a, and that{le broda} = {ko'a noi je'u cu'i ke'a broda}. 
Veridical specifics,which are common in English, cannot be rendered in Lojban 
bya gadri and so for these ko'a is the only usage option.>
A solution to one of our ongoing problems, I suppose, but that does not mean 
it requires retrofitting all the rest of the grammar around {ko'a}, as indeed 
it doesn't.

<(Note btw that I take 'incidental' clauses to be nonrestrictive but not 
parenthetical; i.e. as if 'incidental' is a bit of a misnomer.)>
A piece of Lojban technical terminology a misnomer! What a shocking idea! 
(Is there one in English that really fits?)

adam:
<Another possible way to do this, without using &quot;ko'a&quot;, would be 
with&quot;makau&quot;. It seems that, in addition to its regular function (or 
maybethis is another way to describe its regular function), &quot;kau&quot; 
indicatesa large amount of specificity. For example, in &quot;mi djuno le 
du'u makauklama le zarci&quot;, &quot;da&quot; is a referent of &quot;makau&
quot; in many (probably most)cases, but it's not what is meant by the person 
saying the sentence.Thus, I think that &quot;le broda&quot; is basically 
equivalent to &quot;makau poike'a broda&quot; (ignoring your veridicality 
issues, though I'm sure youcan get them back if you want). In addition, a 
phrase like &quot;how Ilearned Lojban&quot; should sometimes be something 
like &quot;makau poi ta'ike'a mi cilre fi la lojban&quot; and not &quot;ta'i 
makau mi cilre fi lalojban&quot;, since the English sometimes refers to a 
method, and not aproposition. For example &quot;He learned Lojban how I 
learned Lojban&quot; ->&quot;ko'a cilre fi la lojban ta'i makau poi ta'i ke'a 
mi cilre fi lalojban&quot;. At least it avoids &quot;ko'a&quot;, which most 
people want to look fora previous referent for.> (God I hate what to things 
when they go through my machine)
This is ingenious but I am not sure it is coherent. It is another use of 
what is loosely called "indirect question," but are they similar enough 
logically to be uttered in these ways. I hope someone will examine this 
further. For now, I dodge because I am hunting {goi}.

Problem: Although {goi} is usually introduced as device for assigning a more 
convenient sumti to carry the freight for a more complex one -- a KOhA for a 
long name or a highly particularized abstract, for example -- often using the 
analogy of the legal "hereinafter called 'the Company,'" the Book assigns it 
another role and writers have used it in still others, with the result that 
its "primary" role gets lost. Further, even in that role, the way {goi} has 
been used has allowed for unclarity: which of the terms connected is to be 
identified with which, assuming that one or the other or both eventually get 
established. While in practice this is usually clear, in theory -- and often 
enough to worry in practice -- it is not.

Proposal (clarification?): {goi} is always defining and always takes the form 
{x goi y}, where y is assigned the value of x. 

Support: This agrees with the elementary introduction of {goi} and answers 
the question of which identification to seek when both are lacking or to 
follow when they appear to be inconflict. Other uses of {goi} are covered by 
{no'u}.

Objection. (I really need help here, since the one objection seems to be that 
we sometimes want to do the defining in the reverse order and so need {goi} 
not {no'u}, which is only factual, not defining. This seems to trivial to 
bother with -- and can {goi} take {se} if it really makes a difference?)

Summary. This looks like a trivial and acceptable clarification, to be 
agreed to.